Friday, September 10, 2004

I am sure the speech writer didn't put that in - here is the full statement by our enamored antagonist, Mr. John Kerry.

"I mean, heavens to Betsy folks, we've had that law on the books for the last 10 years and there's not a gun owner in America who can stand up and say they tried to take my guns away," Kerry said. "I mean, let's get real. Let's get real"....
...."I am a hunter and I'm a gun owner and I have hunted since I was about a teenager and I respect it ... and I believe in the Second Amendment," he said. "And I'll tell you this, as a hunter, I've never ever thought about going hunting with an AK-47 or an Uzi or anything else. Never."

That's John Kerry, now coming down on assault weapons. "Why is George Bush making the job of terrorists easier and making the job for America's police officers harder?" Asks the interminable Mr. Kerry.
Let's talk about assault weapons. I know people who own them. I know people who sell them. While I personally have no pressing desire to own such a weapon, I have no problem with others owning them. Terrorists do not get their weapons legally - neither do those wishing to do evil with them, for the most part. They are gotten illegally, on the reknown black market. Whether or not we have laws regarding the sale of so-called assault weapons is not going to stop these people from owning them. They get them outside of the law. The only thing the law will do is limit law-abiding citizens from purchasing them.
Why would anyone want to own assault weapons, you may ask. Simple. Anyone one who has ever been target shooting and enjoyed it knows that it can be addictive: to see how accurate you can be with different weapons, how much damage you can do to the target, how quickly you can take down the target. There is nothing evil about this - it is no different than violent sports like football and wrestling. It reaches that "conquer-and-destroy" instinct in us. Not everyone can relate to it, but it is there for some. As long as they are not using their weapons to harm, what is wrong with it? Besides, if someone comes tearing up my house with an Uzi, no cop is going to get me out of this. I can only hope I live next to one of these folks who believe in fighting fire with fire.
Reality is, there are places in the U.S. where law-abiding citizens cannot carry a handgun. Example: California. My own state is home to Philadelphia, and despite the fact that I have a license to carry a concealed weapon, I leave my weapon behind when I enter Philadelphia because they can confiscate it, and very well may, on absolutely no grounds - they'll come up with an excuse, and I am SOL. Philadelphia is not a city that believes in the 2nd amendment. I don't know about you, but I want to be able to defend myself. If someone comes into my house with a gun, and all I have is a kitchen knife, probably a dull blade, who do you think is going to win this fight? Who has to get closer to whom to do damage?
We are losing our rights to defend ourselves and our families, and this is just one more example of the Democrats trying to eradicate the 2nd amendment. It is not the weapons that are evil - it is the heart behind it. Rather than attack different weapons of different strengths and abilities, we would do better to attack the problem: the human heart. Too many times we allow the perpetrator to get sympathy, while we blame the inanimate object. I believe it is because we don't like to think we are capable of intense evil. I have news for you: we all are capable of sickening, frightening evil. Any one of us could be Hitler, Mussolini, or Manson. Sympathy has its place, but not in the face of true, human evil. We have control over what we do, and it is that control that should be rewarded, not the lack thereof. Weapons are not evil - neither are alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, or money. They are incapable of performing moral actions. That is up to us - and we need to start realizing it.